Your quote shows that it was Tugger that brought up animals in response to me saying humans have been given the responsibility to create life. So again, I was just continuing Tuggers line of reasoning about every living thing on earth. I agree it doesn't have much bearing on this discussion, but it was just an off shoot from his comments. Sometimes conversations do that.
I have answered your question several times, if life begins at conception, abortion kills a living human. Its not about controlling what a women does with her body, rather protecting an innocent human. I will say it again, even thought i have said it several times, I am on the fence about this. I don't know for sure when life begins, and there is no scientific consensus on that either, so neither side can claim when life begins with any credibility. I am simply presenting the other side of the argument.
By not giving blood to someone who needs a transfusion you are killing that person.
By Not feeding a starving person you are killing that person
By Not paying for medical intervention for an ill person who cannot afford it you are killing that person
By Not giving shelter to a homeless person are you killing that person
even if a fetus is 'alive' that does not directly mean that its human, and even if it is human why is it entitled to anyone elses property.
Life or not is an irrelevant argument to drag the discussion off course by the anti personal-freedom advocates.
I'm pro choice, the anti personal-freedom stance seems to be at odds with what society deems acceptable on just about everything.
Edit: Anti personal-freedom = anti other-persons-personal-freedom
All are Red Herrings. A man and women created the fetus and their situation, they did not create any of the situations you are trying to deflect to.
Why is that relevant to what a female chooses to do with her body?
Life is 100% relevant.
It might be useful for an emotional plea but simply stating that its relevant doesn't make it so.
I guess that's part of the problem, pro-choicer's are not recognizing that, they keep going back to it being about control.
Then it should be up to the anti-personal-freedom crowd to show why its relevant rather than just saying its so, its not god squad, you cant just say something and claim that its a given because of "morals"
For most, it is not, it's about protecting an innocent life,
Absolutely, protec5ting innocent females choice to do as they please wit their bodies.
but please tell me how I am wrong. Since the abortion debate is pretty equally split (47/49 according to Statistica,
Cool, we should be able to vote on which other people have to give blood too?
I would say it is not what "society deems acceptable". I agree that we need to have personal freedom, but for the pro lifers, its personal freedom of the innocent fetus that they are protecting.
Same as the innocent life of a person bleeding to death, like I say enforced removal of blood and organs.
Since science can't even agree on whether the fetus is a live human, neither can you or I. We can have our opinions, but that's it.
Again why does it being alive matter, a worm is alive.
I don't care what the statistics say, if 51% of people wanted people with red hair to be cooked and eaten would that make it acceptable?